11

Nobel Prize winner Sir Paul Nurse examines why science appears to be under attack, and why public trust in key scientific theories has been eroded – from the theory that man-made climate change is warming our planet, to the safety of GM food, or that HIV causes AIDS.

He interviews scientists and campaigners from both sides of the climate change debate, and travels to New York to meet Tony, who has HIV but doesn’t believe that that the virus is responsible for AIDS.

This is a passionate defence of the importance of scientific evidence and the power of experiment, and a look at what scientists themselves need to do to earn trust in controversial areas of science in the 21st century.

Share: Science Under Attack

Related Documentaries

From The Web

Cap’nHerstory

Science isn’t under attack, that’s just a paranoid fantasy of fundamentalist materials. Like all fundamentalists, they lack of the breadth of perspective necessary to accept that no philosophy or methodology is universally applicable.

Johnny

As the above poster mentioned science is not under attack it is simply being challenged, as it is supposed to constantly be in order to prevent dogmatic thinking.

Science is supposed to be about being skeptical, yet those who are skeptical of modern science itself are deemed to be attacking science?

I’d say they are upholding that scientific principle better than the establishment actually.

A good example of this is electricity – today most scientists think electromagnetism IS electricity when in actuality it is just one aspect or ‘quadrant’ of electrical energy(there are 4 known quadrants).

Why? Because science was hijacked by ‘theoretical mathematics’ and the full scale of electrical energy was too difficult to model mathematically with accuracy thus they discombobulated electrical theory to focus primarily on EM which they can model relatively accurately, and ignore the more difficult aspects they can’t model.

But by ignoring the rest of electrical theory they have forgotten what EM itself actually is and have made some gross errors in their figuring that have led to theories of ‘particles of magnetism’ and ‘magnetic reconnection’ which are absurdity.

Seriously, one paper I read explained how magnetic reconnection may be possible in space(to explain the EMF’s present all over the place) because theoretically it is possible for reconnection to occur in an infinitely conductive or superconducting plasma. That was after it opened in it’s abstract by citing that there was no evidence of a superconducting plasma existing in space.

So the paper explains how magnetic reconnection in space could be possible if not for the fact it is not possible in space… but somehow that itself means ‘theoretically’ it could in fact be possible and they can continue using it as the excuse for EMF’s in space.

The irony of it all – they need the reconnection excuse to avoid discussion of electricity(constant electric current is needed to sustain an EMF) when the magnetic energy they discuss is an electrical phenomena itself.

There exists in the medium of the universe(the aether, ether, space-time continuum or whatever you call it) lines of force.

Electrical energy that passes longitudinally along the axis of those lines of force is dielectric energy which meets no resistance and produces little or no magnetic energy and can seemingly exceed the speed of light(or close to it, difficult to tell on Earth).

Magnetic energy is produced when electrical energy passes transversely or ‘broadside’ to those lines of force(through the electrons) which produces resistance that places stress on the lines and creates tension.

That tension in those lines of force is magnetic energy. There are no ‘magnetic field lines’ or lines of force to ‘break’ or ‘reconnect’, the lines of force are electrical and the magnetism is electrical itself and a direct result of tension on those electric lines of force caused by an expanding or contracting charge field(expanding field = positive magnetic energy, contracting field = negative magnetic energy).

Tesla worked primarily with dielectric longitudinal energy rather than EM and look how the establishment treated him, and still treats much of his work today. They don’t understand it so he is wrong and to be dismissed without serious consideration.

The scientific establishment has become a religion whereby true skepticism is non-existent and replaced instead by skepticism only of things that contradict their existing accepted ‘consensus’ belief’s.

That is not true science thus science is not under attack, a religion is.

Also this documentary is a propaganda joke, by including very real challenges to the existing scientific consensus alongside basic and unscientific misconceptions of the established views it implies all challenges to modern science are just petty misconceptions – anyone that doesn’t understand their view is just too stupid/uneducated to understand it.

Johnny

Edit for clarification: EM represents 2 quadrants(direct and alternating current) of electricity, not 1 as I erroneously stated above.

The other 2 quadrants being oscillating and impulse currents which are longitudinal dielectric energy.

ellie

johnny…you intrique me.

ellie

sp…intrigue..

Johnny

I’m not sure if that is just sarcasm or not but I’ll take it as a compliment, so thank you.

Here’s something intriguing to me – what is light?

We have this fabled ‘maximum velocity’ produced by it because there is nothing in the ‘conventional sciences’ that could match or exceed it.

Yet dielectric waves and currents can match or exceed it as shown by Nikola Tesla and Eric Dollard along with numerous others throughout the last century or so.

Certainly they are controversial figures but you can test it for yourself if you find the plans for a Tesla radio and build it properly and can get the equipment necessary to make accurate measurements and such.

But assuming the work of Tesla and Dollard and others is legitimate – if the only thing known to mankind that can match or exceed the speed of light is dielectric longitudinal energy then maybe light itself is a dielectric longitudinal phenomenon?

It makes sense, no?

But to make such a logical assumption will not endear you to the established ‘consensus’ community as they don’t like their accepted views of particle physics being challenged.

And assuming a dielectric origin to light(natural starlight anyways) requires a challenge to conventional particle physics theories of light to be certain.

Dielectric energy comes in the form of oscillating and impulse currents but the greatest results for Tesla to my knowledge came from pulsed energy so it seems the best fit for light(though there is indication it could be both combined).

So rather than ‘photons’ or ‘photonic particles’ there are dielectric pulses of light energy, and a pulse behaves like a particle and a wave at the same time(as light does) much better than an actual particle does.

And since all living entities on Earth make use of pulsed and oscillating energy it makes sense that the natural light which sustains that life would also behave in a pulsed and/or oscillating manner.

I wonder how many theories are built on conventional particle physics that would have to be ‘reevaluated’ if those base theories were to be found inadequate, and I wonder if anyone has any reason to ignore or dismiss these kinds of challenges intentionally to avoid having all those ‘accepted’ theories be torn apart?

Oh well, I’m sure after thousands of years of science being wrong the establishment finally has it all right now and I myself and the many others out there are just way off base thinking it’s possible they could be mistaken.

The most intriguing thing to me is that a ‘consensus’ by nature is a status-quo, yet in order to be able to challenge the status-quo in science today you must be accepted(peer reviewed and supported) by the status-quo community itself.

Anyone want to bet on the likelihood of the status-quo community accepting any research that upsets the status-quo their community exists specifically to uphold?

Unless it becomes blatantly obvious and can’t be ignored any longer status-quo damaging material does not get accepted by the status-quo community.

Surely even most consensus scientists can see the problem with this?

Johnny

As an added note: if you follow the line of thinking of starlight/energy being dielectric then you will eventually come to understand the nature of Earth’s electrical cycles – magnetic positive to magnetic negative, with the dielectric phase midway(no magnetic potential/planetary EMF).

The Earth is a capacitor that builds up charge from the Sun’s dielectric energy current and that increasing charge field produces an electromagnetic field(magnetosphere) which then blocks the dielectric energy of the Sun and diffuses it(leaving EM electrostatic energy dominant in Earth’s atmosphere).

An expanding(positive) or contracting(negative) charge field will produce an EMF, but if the charge field does not expand or contract and the local ‘lines of force’ are undisturbed(no torsion) the EMF will cease.

When the EMF ceases it stops blocking and diffusing the Suns dielectric energy and that natural dielectric energy bathes the Earth with the same type of pulsed and oscillating energy that all living organisms on Earth naturally function on and thrive from.

This is known as the dielectric phase, though the ancient peoples preferred terms like ‘the golden age’.

Unfortunately in order to get there we first have to get through a turbulent transition period in which the Earth’s environment is going to get a bit dicey to say the least.

Hopefully I will be alive to enjoy the next golden age, and thankfully I definitely will not be alive to witness the end of that golden age and the beginning of the next ice age that will be following it.

But hey, here’s hoping I’m just clinically insane. Cause if not that opens up a whole lot of doors that most people don’t want to open, many don’t even want to acknowledge they exist.

There is no ‘great 2012 doomsday cataclysm’ awaiting us, there is only the natural cycles of the Earth, but by being ignorant to those cycles and their effects we are dooming ourselves.

ellie

Would defining the opposite of light define what light is?

PS, my comment is a compliment.

Although I am obviously not as educated as you are, (I do not mean this as a negative conclusion of myself, just an obvious insight) I take a great interest in the shared thoughts and ideas of others and especially how these thoughts and ideas develop from/within a person.

Johnny

Actually I am far from ‘educated’ on anything, being educated means one has been programmed with a certain set of information whereas I am constantly broadening my horizons and never allowing the dogma of my prior thinking to prevent me from seeing things from new and/or different perspectives.

There is a reason Einstein said the only thing hampering his learning was his education, education hampers creative thinking and scientific progress.

Nikola Tesla had a poor grasp of mathematics(relatively speaking for the science he was in) but an incredible imagination and thought process and I guarantee as time advances even more of his accomplishments/inventions will come to be realized to have been far ahead of their times…as the dozens that have already been discovered as such since his death.

Although many in the alternative science realm view him quite lowly I personally view Einstein as a genius and he is simply misunderstood by them. Although I view him as far superior to myself I like to think that one area I am equal to him is in the fact we both are believers in perpetually learning and avoiding education/indoctrination.

And you make a valid point on defining the opposite of light as being able to help define what light is.

Personally my views on the matter are that ‘vacuum space’ which under the conventional view exists between atoms is actually a state of ‘pure’ energy.

Ironically after years of having people dismiss my views as such it’s actually the Large Hadron Collider which I have criticized as a waste of money numerous times that has recently born witness to the most energetic activity documented to date when the tests are conducted in a vacuum.

This energy may be called many things(commonly the Zero Point Energy or ZPE Field) but exists even in the blackest of blackest, the complete absence of light.

In my views it this is energetic vacuum space that forms the ‘lines of force’ or ‘aetheric currents’ which dielectric and electromagnetic energy acts upon and through.

So that vacuum space is a key part of the equation for both light and complete darkness as it exists in both environments.

If you’re not careful though you could do as I have in the past and end up spending hours theorizing yourself into a complete circle, ending with electrical charge ‘radiation’ being the cause of that ZPE Field which then allows for the electrical energy to flow that produces the charge that produces the ZPE that allows the electrical energy to flow… and so on.

Lol.

One thing I know is that everyone that knows me agrees I sure find science more exciting than most who are more ‘educated’ on it than I.

Really, how could anyone not find it exciting to delve into the ‘electrifying’ nature of the universe?

You don’t need a PHD in anything, grab some insulated wire and some old car and TV parts and you can begin experimenting with a simple electrostatic converter that can be used for emergencies to keep batteries charged for a phone, a light, etc. Best of all the worse the storm the greater the electrical activity and the better it works.

I love science with a passion. I can’t stand people who tell me what is or is not acceptable or “real” science though.

And specialism needs to go, a multidisciplinary approach is a far better system.

Med. student

“Trust no one. Trust only what the experiments and data tell you.”

This is a good documentary about the problems that todays scientists have to deal with. I think that the above commentators do not completely understand what is told in this film. Maybe they haven’t even watched the film.

In the documentary it is never said that skepticism is bad in science. Actually, it is clearly emphasised that skepticism belongs in science.

The problem today is that the scientists have a bad relationship with the media and the public. Scientists are failing to communicate in a such a way that the ordinary man could understand what is going on in our complex world. Because of this failure to communicate, fundamentalist denials and political ideologists get their message easily out to the public. This process is catalyzed by the Internet, which is full of more or less accurate information. This site itself is a very good example of such a phenomena.

ellie

Do you think that scientists have a bad relationship with the media and the public partially due to the funding they receive and where that funding comes from? Are the scientists pressured to respond in a specific manner that the funder may demand or they withdraw funding for scientists to continue their work?

Med. student

I think science has a bad relationship with the media and public because the world we live in is changing very rapidly. We live in a very individualistic time. For example in medicine this is seen in such a way that the authority of doctors is questioned. The patients want to be part of the decisionmaking process when treatment is being prescribed.

The problem of funding has always been present in science. You can’t do experiments wihtout money. Because most scientists aren’t millionaires, money comes from governments and charitable organisations. Some money comes from the free capitalistic markets (in other words: companies).

Nowadays it is normal to reveal where funding comes from when a scientific paper is published. Because of this everybody can judge for themselves if the results are credible.

But the most important rule in science is an stays: every result from a scientific experiment have to be the same when the experiment is done again by other scientists. This way scientific fraud is detected.

Aaron

I was not impressed by this film at all. I would easily fall into the category of highly skeptical. He seems to easily dismiss skeptics who disagree with “the consensus” yet at the same time says that is how a scientist builds a name for themselves. He then goes on to talk about people having an opinion of the science in question and only believing that as well as looking only for evidence supporting that theory, then he does the exact same thing but only believes the opposite side of the theory. I am referring to his dismissal of the interview of the man about HIV. He was so thoroughly convince that HIV did cause AIDS that he refused to believe it could be any other way, yet talked about the guy that did believe it was some other way as if he was some lunatic that was blatantly ignoring the so called “facts”.

The part about the GMO foods was extremely one sided. Again he obviously had his belief system rooted in science and believed in GMO crops. He again dismisses the view that went against the “scientific consensus” by talking about some uneducated people saying they don’t want food with genes in it and that is all he shows of the other side of the coin.

I decided to watch this film because I am skeptical of man made climate change and wanted to see some evidence to show that it is man made. I was not persuaded at all and am still not convinced. This film was a waste of an hour of my life and I would not recommend anyone to watch it.

CandleJack

Repeat it with me: Science is a method not a position, science is a method not a position, Science is a method not a position. You can’t take the body of scientific work, and claim it as your ideology.

Science is a series of methodologies for working with math, logic, and observation to make models of phenomena. That’s it, it’s not objective, it’s not factual, it’s just sets of models.

You can’t fight ideas, they live or die on their merit alone.

ellie

Johnny,

Yes, I agree. Let’s substitute the word knowledge for education….

Regarding your statement…

This energy may be called many things(commonly the Zero Point Energy or ZPE Field) but exists even in the blackest of blackest, the complete absence of light.

I am thinking that it is not possible to ever have complete absence of light. Your thoughts?

I am interested in a short synopsis of your life, so to speak. I was born into a monetarily poor family which I think, for a great part of my upbringing, contributed to me being unable to acquire knowledge, along with the “times”, such as not having the internet etc..

At this point in my life, I am grateful for the opportunities I have (my choice of course to seek or not to seek) to acquire knowledge. I would like to say “thank God”, but the word God makes me uncomfortable, for many reasons, although I am confident there is a creator, however I do not think he/she/it cares what title I use, so I will use a symbol… * anyway, I thank * these opportunities.

And I 100% agree with your decision not to let your dogma of prior thinking prevent seeing things from new and/or different perspectives. I believe that is a critical choice which influences ones growth.

What were the great influences in your life that guided you towards your insatiable appetite for knowledge? Did the possession of funds contibute to your opportunities to acquire knowledge? Also, what is your thoughts on the current monetary system and how it affects each and every human being?

Johnny

“I am thinking that it is not possible to ever have complete absence of light. Your thoughts?”

In my view light itself is just energy in high concentrations(high density in a low volume of space) and since energy under any name you want to call it does pervade the entire universe yes I suppose that is true.

“I am interested in a short synopsis of your life, so to speak.”

Well I was born into a religious(Christian Reformed) family and society and although my family was lower middle class and not actually in poverty it seemed worse due to the $2,500 a year per child tuition to private the Christian school that my grandfather was a board member of and where my mother worked.

It was my laughable education in that Christian school that made me start questioning formal education as a system in general, and in grade 8 I undertook a history project on the Holocaust that led to my discover of undeniable facts that blatantly contradicted the official history.

Regardless to say my Christian school which held an annual arts competition for art ‘remembrance’ projects relating to the Holocaust did not take kindly to my discovery of those facts and failed the project and got me into some hot water and detention trouble.

That is when my disdain for the academic establishment began, as did my interest in historical revisionism.

My interests themselves are quite varied due to me having a very hyperactive mind but my core interests are politics and theoretical sciences – or rather the fields dominated by theoretical science now such as astrophysics and cosmology.

I sort of function as a human data mining system in the sense that I take in a great deal of information on numerous subjects from every perspective I can find and then I compare them all and look for areas of outright agreement, similarity, patterns, etc. which I then build off of in trying to come to understanding of the universe.

My personal philosophy is that of a generalist, so to speak, and can be boiled down to one sentence:

I seek to understand the big picture rather than knowing every detail contained within it.

But you can’t come close to understanding or even knowing anything about the big picture by ignore key aspects of it such as electricity.

“What were the great influences in your life that guided you towards your insatiable appetite for knowledge?”

Mainly Albert Einstein, Nikola Tesla, Christian Birkeland, Eric Dollard, James Maxwell and Immanuel Velikovsky, and to a lesser extent in more recent years people like Dwardu Cordona, Wal Thornhill, Don Scott, and many more.

Since I don’t ignore or dismiss any viewpoint on any issue(unless observational evidence falsifies it) I have been influenced by a large and wide ranging cast of exquisitely brilliant characters over the years.

“Did the possession of funds contibute to your opportunities to acquire knowledge?”

Yes and no, most of my actual experiments have been very small scale novelty items like electrostatic motors or converters because I do not have the money to afford the types of equipment needed for large-scale experimentation.

But the novelty items do provide valuable insight into the science behind it all and most can be made from scrap metal and spare parts found at junk yards(one of my favorite places) and flea markets and such.

“Also, what is your thoughts on the current monetary system and how it affects each and every human being?”

I despise the current system, since the bankers of the Fed Reserve took back complete control of the system in 1913 the people of America and the rest of the world have been having our wealth stolen from us and replaced with worthless paper with hyper-inflated artificial(fake) values.

Since 1913 the wealth of the average family has declined steadily while the wealth of the small minority of elites has increased at exponential rates.

If the people of the world had actual wealth we wouldn’t need credit systems, credit systems exist so that the people that already have taken all of our actual wealth can keep making more money off of us even as we go further and further into debt.

Blacks Law Dictionary Second Edition defines ‘credit’ as ‘debt owed to a merchant’.

So since we no longer have actual wealth we rely on a debt system to keep us going, where debt is money(to the bankers who run things).

What more needs to be said really?

Ellie

Johnny,

From Wikipedia…Wal Thornhill, and Donald E. Scott have embraced and developed these themes to propose a scenario where stars are powered not by internal nuclear fusion, but by galactic-scale electrical discharge currents. Would you expound on this for me? Do you think stars are powered by both internal nuclear fusion and galactic-scale electrical discharge currents?

Johnny

Personally I don’t view the standard internal stellar nuclear fusion theory as having any credibility today.

Arthur Eddington stated in the very paper that he first detailed the full fusion theory in that a ‘casual observer’ could cite numerous ‘fatal objections’ to the theory.

Those fatal objections still remain and are even more well documented now, such as the existence of the corona, the incorrect temperature gradient, the solar wind which is electrically charged much higher than any thermodynamic process currently known could account for, Coronal Mass Ejection’s(CME’s) and Solar Flares(which accelerate up to 40% the speed of light), etc.

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the sun is electrical in nature, and I do generally concur with the Electric Sun hypothesis put forward by the EU team of Thornhill and Scott et al.

Galactic and intergalactic EM currents are something I have seen enough evidence of over the years to have no doubt that they exist, but I don’t see their theory as being complete either as the EU theory is focused 99% on electromagnetism and not on dielectricity.

For understanding only the EM side of the universe it is valuable, but for a complete picture one has to look beyond any one perspective.

So yes I think their theory of the sun accounts for the EM aspects of it quite well, but there is more involved than just EM and frankly I find their model just too simplistic to match with the observations of things such as an entire hemisphere of the sun erupting in a chain-reaction event but releasing/producing relatively little EM energy.

I will note however that one should not completely dismiss the notion of fusion reactions being involved as the sun is made of plasma and is electrically charged, and there are a few different plasma fusion processes that could produce such reactions under the right conditions.

But thermal imaging of the sun indicates that any fusion reaction can not be in the core since sunspots(‘holes’ in the surface of the sun) allow us to see the deepest into the sun possible right now and they clearly are colder than the surface.

Fusion at the core radiating heat outwards would produce the reverse of what we actually see with the temperature gradient generally rising as it gets away from the surface culminating with the greatest temperatures at the corona.

That temperature gradient is one thing the Electric Sun theory does account for quite nicely(far better than fusion theory), even if only taking an EM viewpoint.

But what is completely 100% bunk is the idea of the extremely weak gravitational force causing hydrogen gas to compress so greatly as to self-ignite a fusion reaction that produces helium.

Honestly I have yet to come across a single theory in any field of science that can actually account for every single observation/piece of evidence completely accurately and solar theory is no exception.

Although the Electric Sun view may be more accurate and thus better to use as a base point for further investigation than the internal stellar fusion view one should not get hung up on thinking it provides all the answers and should continue reviewing other theories to try to find all the pieces to fit together.

For me personally the actual physical construction of a star is the hardest thing to try to understand, every time I think I have developed a better understanding of it I come across a new(or old and overlooked) piece of evidence that slaps me back to confused reality. lol

And I apologize if this post is a bit choppy or difficult to read, I had a hell of a time trying to figure out how to order things and fit them all together so they tie in to each other somewhat.

Ellie

Johnny,

Well first of all, I want to thank you for always responding to my questions in such detail. This is such a great opportunity, to be able to ask you questions that I am unable to ask of anyone I know, only because I do not know any knowledgeable scientists!…and for you to take the time to respond. Thank you so much…and please excuse my ignorance of these topics or any questions that my seem a bit “dumb”.

Here’s something else I am very interested in…quantum mechanics/physics. Would you tell me what your thoughts are on this…

Ellie.

Johnny

No problem at all, I spend so much time asking questions myself I enjoy having the chance to provide some responses for a change, though hopefully they lead to more questions for you(as I always intend them too). So thank you for asking.

Also I do not consider any of your questions to be dumb nor you to be ignorant, though to be honest in my view ignorance itself isn’t a bad thing unless it’s intentional ignorance.

If you are asking questions then you must be aware of these things even if you aren’t learned on them, which hardly seems like ignorance to me.

“Here’s something else I am very interested in…quantum mechanics/physics. Would you tell me what your thoughts are on this…”

Quantum Physics is essentially a giant ‘fudge factor’ for modern science which mainly studies the things that the rest of consensus science says aren’t possible, many of which are electric phenomenon(some of which they themselves realize).

The problem is they still try to use the perspective of the consensus science to interpret these things that in many cases by definition contradict the consensus views(“spooky action at a distance” for example).

But those truly interested in quantum physics I have personally found to be some of the most open minded individuals within the scientific orthodoxy and if you can comprehend their often unnecessarily complicated dialogue a discussion can yield very interesting results.

But certainly studying the things that contradict consensus views is likely to be a major factor in helping to move past the currently entrenched dogma so I do wholeheartedly support the field of Quantum Physics in general and especially Quantum Electrodynamics(QED).

I just wish they would spend less time trying to mash the evidence to fit the existing consensus puzzle/picture and spend more time looking to see if there if are other puzzles/pictures around that the pieces would fit better without the need of mashing them into place.

But that is heresy and though you may not get stoned to death your career would take a nose dive for sure for doing that, as a long list of researchers/scientists/natural philosophers that have experienced that first hand can testify to(well many are dead now, but they left records of their treatment).

See Nikola Tesla, Eric Dollard, Eric Lerner and Anthony Peratt(becoming more accepted now with increasing cosmic plasma understanding) just for starters.

Of course some of them like Tesla and Dollard had to deal with more than just science related difficulties, in their specific cases radical environmentalists with misunderstandings of their work are/were a big problem as well.

Johnny

I don’t have much time at the moment and may be gone for the weekend but I’ll give a more thorough response when I can.

For now I’ll just say that my curious nature is mainly due to my uncle who drilled it into me at a very young age that you can’t find the correct answers for anything if you don’t ask the right questions.

And you can’t ask the right questions if you don’t understand the issues for yourself.

So I do not like relying on others to give me answers because if I don’t research the issues myself how do I know the answers being given are to the correct questions that should actually be asked?

That goes for politics and world affairs as much so as science, even more so really.

At one time I actually considered putting my disdain for ‘education’ aside and getting a degree in Political Sciences just so I could know exactly what I was up against, but the system we live under can’t be fought from the inside and I don’t support it so I would have ended up treading water for the rest of my life going down that path.

Well actually I do somewhat support the type of system in place but the way it’s managed, and especially the monetary system is downright disgusting to me.

But I’ll address that more later on when I get back, I’m just on my lunch break at the moment and it’s time to head back to work now.

Just wanted to make a post now in case I don’t get on for a few days so you don’t think I’m ignoring you.

Johnny

Forgot to actually quote/reply to Ellie, lol.

ellie

Question…if our current system can not be fought from the inside…and I don’t see how it can be fought from the outside….are we in a hopeless situation?

No pressure in responding…enjoy the weekend.

Johnny

Haha, that is an excellent comment. I may have misstated what I actually meant in that regard, in my view the only way the system can be brought down is from both in the inside and outside together in a combined effort.

The problem is that the system is designed so that anyone can “run” for office but only those with the money to pay for massive corporate media advertising and support actually make it to office in the positions that actually matter(president, prime minister, etc.).

Based on my personal situation I could go through the schooling and get a bachelors in political science and get into the system if I tried very, very hard, but any position I attained would be minor and not usable for any real change.

I’d just end up treading water in low-level positions with no power(money and connections primarily) to be able to do anything meaningful.

There are those on the inside who not only can help bring change but in my view are an absolute requirement for it to be able to happen.

Those who have real power within the system already need to grow a conscious and work together with those on the outside(regular people) to make a full scale political and social movement possible.

If you check with the Department of Homeland Security in the U.S.A they aren’t too shy about publicizing their view that a “potential” terrorist is ultimately anyone who ‘threatens the existing social and political order’.

This system won’t go down easy and without a fight, people on the inside and outside would have to work together in a big way.

I wouldn’t hold my breath for that to happen in the near future though.

Jonky

Johnny, as people are not interested in anything you have to say you are simply wasting you time. Your opinions are irrelevant and boring.

ellie

Jonky,

I am curious as to why you say this. I am far from a scientist, although I am very much interested in science, I am more of a “philosopher”. When I read Johnnys’ statements, I find them extremely interesting. I am just curious as to why you and I may differ so.

Also, sometimes it is difficult to “read between the lines” so I would like to let you know that I do not ask this in a negative, judgemental manner. I really am curious as to how/why you have come to this conclusion.

Ellie.

Random person

Very interesting conversation here. btw, Jonky I would like to point out that someone is obviously interested in what Johnny has to say [ellie], so why the hating? Johnny has not been rude or said anything inappropriate, just let them talk. Last time I checked, free speech was allowed.

Johnny

Well thank you for that. The main reason I write on these types of sites is because that way if someone doesn’t care what I have to say they can just ignore it.

I only wish I could put a gun to some people’s heads and make them read some of it…lol

When actually speaking about these things you get people who don’t care that heckle you just because they don’t care(regardless of whether others there do) and degrade the conversation into childishness.

But on here with the writing those who do care enough to read it and disagree or agree can respond and possibly provide me with a new perspective on certain issues that I hadn’t considered before.

I also note that Jonky clearly does care enough to reply to me rather than simply ignoring me completely as 99% of those who truly don’t care do.

Hewlettcraphard

I found what you had to say interesting. I was going to say that you must have had some interest from Jonky. Perhaps he was worried he wasn’t the centre of attention

alen

Paul if you’re reading this, you’re wrong about:

-asking only a small number of people about material so complex, so perplexed and vast to comprehend by a single mind, so your guests can’t make an impact on anyone.

-first the nasa guy, he’s behind this grand governemnt organization, we need reports from independent scientistic laboratories, the nasa guy wanted to impress us with his shiny thingies, but he only showed how good their predictions are for a very very very small period of time, what was that simulation running time? maybe 10 seconds or a few days in real life? go and make an accurate prediction for 100, 200, 1000, 2000 years, go and make a simulation which based just on data makes a past predictions of weather conditions, then take your evidence from the mud of lakes, or in depth of glaciers or where ever you take it and compare your sim with temperatures and weather conditions in past. that’d impress me and show me you’ve taken a grasp of understanding climate to know what’s gonna happen next.
second of all, that sim wasn’t all that great, I’ve noticed many differences in thicknesses and densities of clouds comparing that sim and real data.

-second, the GMO guy, he’s saying that all those millions of farmers growing GMO plants aren’t stupid. and what about all the rest? are they stupid? Inform better man, GMO investigations and experiments were made and financed by companies growing and developing GMO plants. go ahead and make independent studies and I’ll be happy to read and trust it then.
GMO companies are what tobacco companies were in the past, in their golden age.

-your analogy of consenzus about cancer versus the climate topic. well, there is no consenzus about cancer cause there are alternative medicines to fight it, those which do not involve pills, radiation, chemoterapy, etc., and still manages to fight cancer. Seems like you’ve found one of those stories with the gay guy at the end, HIV positive guy who lived 13 years after diagnosis inspite doctor’s said him he’ll live only 2.

you’ve touched merely a tip of the iceberg paul, so your film is shallow and unconvincing.

I am responding to your response about quantum physics above, there was no room left to respond to your response…

So, do you think there is any truth to the theory that an observer can change an outcome by observing? (hope I phrased that correctly, I am sure you know what I mean)…

Ellie

-Johnny,

I am responding to your response about quantum physics above, there was no room left to respond to your response…

So, do you think there is any truth to the theory that an observer can change an outcome by observing? (hope I phrased that correctly, I am sure you know what I mean)…

Johnny

Yes I do believe it is possible for a person to change the outcome of something(like an experiment for example) by observing it.

But that has to do with ‘subtle energies’ and conscious intent being imprinted on an object(s) or space(a certain laboratory for example) and not simply the act of observation or any ‘relativistic’ phenomenon.

Although my personal views on it are a bit complicated and far from complete and so I won’t get into them a good place to start(while keeping an open mind) would be with William Tiller’s work, and a good introduction to his work can be found here:

“Conscious Acts of Creation: The Emergence of a New Physics” by William A. Tiller, Professor Emeritus, Stanford University -

Note: That is the first of 3 different articles there that may be quite interesting to you, the second is “Love and Death: The Relationship between Altered-State Sex and Near-Death Experiences” by Jenny Wade, PhD.

And the last is of particular interest given our discussion here, “Darkness and Light” by Daniel J. Benor, MD.

I would note also that as per the second article’s subject near death experiences(NDE’s) are an interesting subject to look into and can help bring a lot of different things together, maybe. It did for me anyways.

Ellie

Thank you so much!

Scientist

Sir Paul is missing the point. He places climate science and GMOs at the same level. Climate Science, for all its faults, has 300 years of history behind it (physics) on which our technological society is based. GMOs on the other hand have less than 40 years of history behind them. Furthermore, playing with self-replicating systems is extraordinarily dangerous to the ecosystem.

Sir Paul is also missing the point because he states it’s “Science under attack”. Science would not be under attack if it weren’t perverted by money. Why are people skeptical about GMOs? Because very little independent (non corporate funded) research is being done on them. Corporate funded research always includes a proviso that the corporation can block publication if the results aren’t as planned. Non-corporate funded research is blocked by corporations using their patent portfolios and other legal means.

Overall a very poor program that reflects poorly on Sir Paul’s understanding of the world outside his lab.

http://NA Theresa

It appears Sir Paul does not understand the dangers of Biotechnology and yes I agree with last comment. Climate change and GM are two SEPARATE ISSUES. Shame on the BBC! Sir Paul really! The ISIS (Institute of Science in Society)and Stop GM websites provide information. Please do the research Sir Paul! Helen Wallace of GeneWatch and Scientists for Global Responsiblity seem to understand the commercial and geopolitical/lobbying influences that Sir Paul and the BBC do not. See Bioscience for Life? Who decides what research is done in health and agriculture? By Helen Wallace. Useful background reading info – William Engdahl’s book: Seeds of Destruction (Amazon).

http://BuyXbox360KinctGames.com Roselee Lenn

Being a Novice, I’m continually checking on-line for content that can support me. Thank you

http://www.myparceldelivery.com/ international couriers

Found this post quite informative as per my science project. Liked its topic specially.
Would like to get more such articles on the same.

Clint

What poor logic! This film is an obvious attempt to disguise institutionalized corruption. “We scientists,” as the narrator repeats, is a lie itself. Don’t let this anti-intellectual hit piece dissuade you from using your own ability to think.

Science is not under attack, only the professional form of science as it is practiced today in elite institutions. The film concludes that “we scientists” just need to communicate better; it’s certainly not a question of the truth of our peer-reviewed, consensual work.

As Chompsky demonstrated years ago, consent can be manufactured. This film is playing to the typical New York Times reader who considers himself educated because he thinks he reads the right, authorative sources of information. All other points of view are problematic and suspicious.

Was it the British knight’s title, his Nobel prize, or his poostion with the Royal Society that was supposed to allow me to turn off my rational mind? I’m surprised he didn’t search out some group of people who claimed the Earth is flat.

If you’re one for the establishment orthodoxy, then I’m sure this film is for you. It will lend you sufficient ammunition at the water cooler or cocktail party to discredit a faceless other (ie. those crazy denialsts). I presume it will make it easier for you to go to work, pay your mortgage and enjoy your favorite TV shows now that you know the head of the Royal Society is committed to better communicating the truth to you. “Thank God it’s all settled!” you might say.

Breanne

I am very upset with how their was maybe two minutes spent on GMO foods. How it is one person’s ignorant comment saying “I don’t want to eat foods with genes it in it”. I do not eat genetically modified foods as much as I possibly can (gmo plant seeds can contaminate other fields) because the health effects of the environment and of the food itself for human ingestion – whether or not the new genetics of the plants are harmful for ingestion, and proper digestive absorption is unknown – or known and just not admitted. I have developed huge intolerances to preservatives in food, in genetically modified foods that I am physically ill when I ingest them. So I implore you how is this completely healthy if I know my trigger is a beefsteak tomato?
How the new species of plant will affect the environment is unknown and I abhor the use of pesticides and chemicals on my food. I however do agree that Scientists DO have the obligation to the public to explain their data or to be more open with the public.Help us understand – I however have an answer to question as to why farmers would be planting those seeds – in countries like Canada companies like Monsanto have monopoly and it is law to use only genetically modified seeds for commercial farming. I believe Prof Jonathan Jones explained in detail at the opening of his interview in this film why the use of genetically modified plants is important economically for farmers and for the government when he details the numbers of dollars spent to prevent Late Blight.
I am resentful of the fact that non-gmo activists are being lumped into the same pile as all the same, as well as painted as the aggressors in this situation. If we were to be truly open with the whole situation I would have loved to have known who is responsible for the pay of these scientists testing the plants that non-gmo activists have been so keen to disrupt at any opportunity. If is the company who own the patent for these seeds (companies like Monsanto) then I would have loved Sir Paul to have showcased the negative impact Monsanto has had to farmers. Who really threw the first punch? Society against the Scientists or people concerned with their health and the overall health of the Earth saying NO STOP WE DON’T WANT IT. I also would like to point out through this testing, a chain link fence will not stop the mold spores from entering his field (remember how this plants were not infected?) but to the same point non gmo seeds CAN go through the fence plant in other fields as well. So whether or not that potato goes through testing and is safe – it will have already entered farmers fields and joined the regular agriculture routine from field to plate. Which in my opinion, from these great minds and scientists is absolutely unacceptable for it is obvious to me. A twenty year old student in Canada who is not studying biochemistry let alone getting paid to practice forms of it.

Breanne

I am very upset with how their was maybe two minutes spent on GMO foods. How it is one person’s ignorant comment saying “I don’t want to eat foods with genes it in it”. I do not eat genetically modified foods as much as I possibly can (gmo plant seeds can contaminate other fields) because the health effects of the environment and of the food itself for human ingestion – whether or not the new genetics of the plants are harmful for ingestion, and proper digestive absorption is unknown – or known and just not admitted. I have developed huge intolerances to preservatives in food, in genetically modified foods that I am physically ill when I ingest them. So I implore you how is this completely healthy if I know my trigger is a beefsteak tomato?
How the new species of plant will affect the environment is unknown and I abhor the use of pesticides and chemicals on my food. I however do agree that Scientists DO have the obligation to the public to explain their data or to be more open with the public.Help us understand – I however have an answer to question as to why farmers would be planting those seeds – in countries like Canada companies like Monsanto have monopoly and it is law to use only genetically modified seeds for commercial farming. I believe Prof Jonathan Jones explained in detail at the opening of his interview in this film why the use of genetically modified plants is important economically for farmers and for the government when he details the numbers of dollars spent to prevent Late Blight.
I am resentful of the fact that non-gmo activists are being lumped into the same pile as all the same, as well as painted as the aggressors in this situation. If we were to be truly open with the whole situation I would have loved to have known who is responsible for the pay of these scientists testing the plants that non-gmo activists have been so keen to disrupt at any opportunity. If is the company who own the patent for these seeds (companies like Monsanto) then I would have loved Sir Paul to have showcased the negative impact Monsanto has had to farmers. Who really threw the first punch? Society against the Scientists or people concerned with their health and the overall health of the Earth saying NO STOP WE DON’T WANT IT. I also would like to point out through this testing, a chain link fence will not stop the mold spores from entering his field (remember how this plants were not infected?) but to the same point non gmo seeds CAN go through the fence plant in other fields as well. So whether or not that potato goes through testing and is safe – it will have already entered farmers fields and joined the regular agriculture routine from field to plate. Which in my opinion, from these great minds and scientists is absolutely unacceptable for it is obvious to me. A twenty year old student in Canada who is not studying biochemistry let alone getting paid to practice forms of it.

Borris

It’s simple. Due to the nature of a partisan and increasingly polarised political system. Any science that becomes politicised immediately becomes a partisan issue. Thus the issue becomes a case of “us versus them”, “left versus right”. Therefore, as soon as one side of politics takes up a position on a scientific issue, the other side will immediately reject it. The political debate, which in turn becomes the public debate, does not correlate in anyway with the scientific debate. Telling a sceptic that AGW is real then becomes the equivalent of telling a Republican that Taxes are a good thing. In an ideal world science should be separate from politics and the political debate should follow from the scientific debate, and not run parallel to it. I commend the Tories for rejecting the partisan politics of the scientific debate such as is occurring in America and to some extent here in Australia. I really want to b*tchslap politicians that presume to say that the majority of the worlds scientists are wrong. I’m not really interested in GM so I didn’t watch that part.

Priscilla

I think this whole thing’s way off: it’s not that people are attacking science, it’s that science is attacking science.

Scientitts are used to very few people understanding the machinations of their grandiose hypotheses. With the internet, we have access to the contrary data and the scientists who documented them have a wider voice.

True, some of it is bollocks but some of it isn’t.

I felt patronised but also feel sympathy for him and other scientists if that’s have they really see us normalos.
–
Priscilla

Priscilla

I think this whole thing’s way off: it’s not that people are attacking science, it’s that science is attacking science.

Scientitts are used to very few people understanding the machinations of their grandiose hypotheses. With the internet, we have access to the contrary data and the scientists who documented them have a wider voice.

True, some of it is bollocks but some of it isn’t.

I felt patronised but also feel sympathy for him and other scientists if that’s have they really see us normalos.
–
Priscilla

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1009814223 Katlynn Williams

I think biotechnology is amazing. I just don’t want to eat genetically modified food. It’s the *squeak* factor for me. Carrots are spliced with pig glands, does that not negate vegetarianism? I really don’t know and that’s what I mean by the squeak factor. I love science and with each new discovery and advancement I love it more but I will still buy from local small farms who can guarantee the integrity of their seeds. On global warming (Duh) The planet goes through cycles it cools and heats we are tiny bugs on this rock. Should we be concerned about air quality, sure. Should we leave a safe planet to our ancestors, absolutely. Do we really believe that the so called policies put in place by the government will reduce carbon, or do we believe they will tax the shit out of everyone and we will still breath crappy air? It will just cost us more money to do so? I tend to lean toward the latter.
Science is manipulated and held back at every corner. We should debate and study. We should always ask questions and we should never blindly believe one set of ideals. I am a big fan of evolution myself, but found, I had to learn it myself. Being raised in the bible belt we weren’t taught it. It wasn’t even mentioned. I discovered Darwin’s work in my thirties and it changed my life. After four years of studying it. I still know very little and learn something new everyday. That’s the beauty of our world.

Geust

Sir Paul thinks part of the problem is politics, whereas I think the problem is with business. If biotechnology were run by scientists, it might possibly be ok. But Monsanto, for example, only cares about profit, yes, at the expense of the health of both people and the environment. Also, the best agricultural practices aren’t being used. If they were, there would be no need for biotechnology.

That said, I can’t imagine what goes through the minds of global warming deniers.

Guest

If this documentary shows nothing else, it definitely reassures me, that they definitely picked the right man for the head of the royal society.

Andy

Reply for Ellie and Johnny Please ask this company for my email. As for people interested in GMO’s look at this site and watch the video.

I have to say, I found the posts as interesting as the documentary. Perhaps because so many of them were in agreement or similar to my thoughts.

Before watching this, my position on the debate on global warming was that it is a waste of time. Opposing views over whether or not humanity is causing global warming as a result of human pollution. Doesn’t anyone find it interesting that both sides indirectly admit that humanity is polluting our only source of life, yet one side wants to keep pushing us closer to the limit of our tolerance to overcome the negative effects of our pollution which most likely will not be realized until it is too late for us to recover from. It is really a debate over whether or not we admit we are destroying our world. Those who are not willing to step back from our polluting ways because they do not want to risk having to give up technological advancements and easier living that cause our pollution or they do not want to give up the money that is related to the causes of our pollution. The bottom line is, we ARE polluting our air, water, land and food. To continue on our current path, future generations will have to biologically change to be able to deal with the pollution(which I do not believe will happen) or we will simply destroy the existence of humanity and likely most of the other forms of life on this planet. Today, science, politics and society in general are driven by wealth, big business and banking. Society makes desisions based on monetary logic, not on what is right for the future of the Earth and humanity. That is a critical and eventually fatal error that humanity is making.

After watching this film (and reading the posts), My thinking is the same. If science is under attack, it is because there are opposing views being presented by supposed scientists through the main stream media and the internet. People have no means to fully know which side is telling the truth, so if the supposed experts are at odds, then someone must be lying or spreading misinformation. The obvious conclusion is that those seeking power and money are most likely the ones spreading the misinformation in an attempt to protect their cash cows. The result is a lack of trust of science, especially science that is funded by large corporations or government as they are the ones who will benefit most by the advancement of businesses that pollute.

Solid, honest and truthful education coupled with aggressive action and resistance is the only possible solution. Those who are destroying our world for power and profits will NEVER give up their strangle hold with out a serious confrontation. Passivity will ALWAYS lose to aggression. Big business, banks and government are aggressive, the people have become passive.

Xoes Koopmans

Science is about theories, thinking up a theory and trying to prove it wrong as meticulously as possible, trying to get all the data right.
Unfortunately with these complex systems we do not have all the data and we do not know what data is missing which means that ultimately experiments and outcomes of data analysis is not complete and can not be taken as “fact” of “truth”. This goes for all research on complex systems in which we do not know exactly what processes contribute to the system and what factors contribute.This is why it is called scientific Theory, not scientific Fact.
This does not mean we should not take scientists seriously, they obviously have more knowledge about the subjects they are studying than we do, they have been studying the subject and we haven’t.
But scientists should themselves stay skeptical of their theories and try to prove their theories wrong instead of “cherry picking” and trying to prove their theories right.

Ruth

You have to remember information on the internet does not have the same regulation as scientific journals, even respected newspapers and television have not been peer-reviewed as regulation is really important to establish that the science behind any theory is sound. Therefore although people may believe they know about these things their information may not necessarily be accurate, reliable or even evidenced based. I implore people to remember this and investigate the evidence and the peer-review that is used in their facts before making a decision that could have serious implications on the future. Humans are capable of changing the fragile balance of the climate and other delicate systems.